pap

I don't hate Pompey. I enjoy it when we beat them because they are our local rivals. Yes, some of their fans are nobs. So are some of ours. They laughed at us when we were in admin. We have an 827 page thread devoted to their ups and downs in the transfer market. Most people from Portsmouth I've actually met have been alright. Sure, they say some wicked things about our football team, and we say some nasty things about theirs. It's more a case of barb-wire banter than hatred for me.

Possibly, but the EU does this sort of thing itself. Loads of places have had EU funding for regeneration. In a programme called Objective 1, it gave money to economically disadvantaged areas. This cash was specifically aimed at generating better employment prospects. Under this scheme, loads of companies were allocated money from local government . If the EU is happy to do this themselves, then they can't really knock Liverpool City Council for doing the same thing.

Being from Southampton and living in Liverpool, I'm a little ambivalent as to who gets the passenger services. Hopefully, there will be enough business to generate jobs in both cities. Cruise holidays have experienced quite a bit of growth in the last decade. I expect the ability to depart from Liverpool is much handier for any Northerners. The £10 million sweetener ( paid using my council tax, incidentally ) is unnecessary and unfair. With assets of £6bn, the Peel Group doesn't need the money. It's unfair to Southampton because they're not competing on a level playing field.

I thought the same thing, actually. For these reasons :- The Romsey Stu thread, started by you. Link to TUI Forum where this sheet went dahn! Elementary, Watson?

Was that show actually any good? I have vague recollections, but nothing more.

Yeah, the regional racism does make me laugh a little bit. I've been living in Liverpool since 1994, and only once was I a victim of crime. I've never been a victim of theft. As to a comparison between the two cities, there are bits to like about both. However, the bits that I love most about Southampton are not likely to be attractive to tourists, and if we're being honest, Liverpool trounces Southampton in terms of entertainment value and attractiveness to visitors. That said, I do think Toxteth and Croxteth are rougher than Millbrook or St. Deny's. Liverpool has had a lot of regeneration, it's true - but Crocky is still full of gun-totin' gangs and Tocky is still a ****hole. Most of the money has been spent on the city centre.

One has just been released for iPad - £2.49. It's a refined version of the PC remake that came out a few years ago. I'm currently playing the PC version.

Original link.

Something along the lines of "Why are you giving Peel Group £10M of public money" along with a link. No response as yet.

I tweeted @lucianaberger, the local MP about this. I don't think it's right that they're doling out public money to do this.

I'm going through a Sid Meier phase at the moment. I'm a real fan of his work. Civilization blew my mind when I first played it on PC, a sort of time-travelling version of chess. I'd never played anything quite like it. I was also a huge fan of Railroad Tycoon! on the Amiga. Pirates! too. I think what I really like about the games he puts his name to ( some of the Civ sequels bore his name yet had different designers ) is the permanence. A lot of the other 'god' games of the era tore down your creations at the end of the level, only to rinse and repeat with a slight variation. Yet in something like Civ, everything you do matters, affecting the rest of the game. Right now, I'm back on Pirates! But Railroads! was last week's game of choice. Both are just refined versions of 20 year old games, but when the design is that good, it doesn't really matter.

Aaaargh. Post hell. Soz.

If Verbal is correct, and shariah law is only applied here for civil cases, then there is no jurisdiction, and therefore no legal means of enforcement. If someone walks through one of these zones having a smoke, what can they actually do? It's perfectly legal. It's just a big wind-up, orchestrated by people who have a history of being provocative, amplified by a newspaper that makes its money from peddling fear.

I'm not disputing the figures you've posted, even though you are a tad guilty of cherry-picking ( pricing, availability of seats, regional variation ). You're also ignoring the point I made about monopolies. Your last point, about subsidisation, only works if the entire network is privately funded and paid for by those taking the trips. It isn't. I'm a tax payer, and as such, I'm already subsidising the rail network. Remember we pay for the bits that aren't profitable. The Train Operating Companies pay for the bits that are, and have raised fares even though we're footing the bill for the part that doesn't make any money. So, right now, I'm paying for a service I don't use. I liked this bit in particular. No, it's more to do with the fact that people have no other choice but to use trains if they commute, and not enough trains being on to accommodate these people. Try getting from Southampton to Central London in less than 1h 15mins in a car. Then try parking.

Yup. About as crap as saying "competition" has been good, or even exists for the railways. All privatisation has done is create a bunch of regional monopolies and fare increases that can't be challenged or undercut by a competitor. In that sense, we're no better off than we were under British rail. New rolling stock is all very good, but its utility really depends on whether you can afford to use them. Above inflation rises in Jan ( and they were pricey anyway ). Plus, privatisation has done nothing to address issues like overcrowding. Try getting out of Euston on a Friday afternoon. I can only speak for myself, but any long trip I make on my own now happens by plane. With the family in tow, it's car all the way. Trains are really poor value for money because they're run for profit, and unlike most other businesses, there is no competition.

Don't agree with this bit. Rail privatisation has been a total disaster. For most regular commuters, the concept of competition doesn't exist. Not happy with your service to London? Want to use another provider? Tough. You're fecked. Of course, the crowning turd in the punchbowl for the taxpayer is that the bit that doesn't make any profit, i.e., the upkeep of the network, is in public hands and we all have to pay for it.

Didn't know how far this game had come along. Just re-downloaded now. Bloody hell

I'm with you on this. The lack of a number 5 is a definite statement of intent.

For the last time, I said it was one of the "big reasons". That does not preclude other big reasons, nor does it require that I exhaustively list them. Keep talking though, Verbal. I think you're doing exceptionally well on the "jumping to conclusions" front, even better at "digging yourself deeper" and if there's ever been anyone who is better at "not knowing when to shut up", I've yet to witness it.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century

*Sigh* At this point Verbal, you're not even debating with me. You're debating with an imagined version of me that you've extrapolated from a single point I've made. I'm not disagreeing with the extra texture you've added to the debate. I think it's valuable. I just don't see why in making your own point, you have to diminish somebody else's point. Still, have fun debating with this imagined version of me. Let me know what conclusion I reach, will you?

I said that one of the "big reasons" it exists is to reduce the size of Government. At no stage did I indicate that it was the only reason it existed. I like the way that you can read one thing and instantly arrive at a load of other conclusions of your own making. It's an impressive skill, but can be dangerous at times.

If you've got that idea, it has come from your own head. I didn't suggest that it was a taxpayer's alliance. I don't see how you could have derived that from the post there. This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending.

Yep, I am quite aware that Foxconn makes components for other manufacturers. I, erm, read the article I posted. The headline of the article is "iPad maker to replace 1 million staff with robots". Also, check out these articles :- Protest at Chinese iPad maker Foxconn after 11th suicide attempt. Another blow for embattled iPad maker Foxconn Workers killed in blast at China plant of iPad maker Foxconn The link with Apple has been pretty well established by several media outlets, all of which have referred to Foxconn as an iPad maker. Apple can presumably pick and choose their suppliers, so I'd say that the link is a bit more than tenuous. Still, what do I know? I've just done a bit of research and applied some common sense.

Irrespective of what you think of Putin or the way that Russia is run, the man is correct on this matter. The US is living beyond its means - soon to be $16tn beyond its means - and the US knows it too. This is one of the big reasons that the Tea Party movement exists in the first place - to shrink the size of Government and in the process, the level of Federal spending. The problems aren't even limited to Federal budgets. Look at the debacle in California, or the upcoming crisis that is about to engulf Jefferson County, Alabama. So let's not dilute the message because we don't like the messenger.